And I'll also be moving this under the "Pending legislation" section (since it's not a law yet)… and including a link here to the new location.

My gut instinct is to agree with @fishnut on this. Animal abuse is an utterly despicable crime. And it not only shows terrible judgement, but it is often a precursor to crimes against people, too.

The ONLY thing that makes me hesitate about this bill is how could it be abused? For instance, we have an increasingly vocal, strident and truly radical animal rights movement in this country with PETA… that I could foresee a day where someone is found "guilty" of animal cruelty for the simple act of killing a backyard chicken for its meat. (I mean, I personally would be hard-pressed to kill a chicken myself, but it's not inherently WRONG. It's part of the natural food chain). But, how much do you think it would really take to get an uber-progressive urban judge to go along with PETA's thinking on something like that? I just worry it could be a slippery slope... and yet another way to encroach on 2A rights. So, yeah, I guess I have some concerns.

Link to post

Share on other sites

So I was just talking about this bill with my old employer who ownes an animal control company in NJ and he is an cruelty investigator and he pointed out that animal cruelty is a crime in NJ there for if convicted the person already loses their 2A rights.

As for the backyard chickens @Mrs. Peel when I was getting certified as an animal cruelty investigator there was an entire section covered on backyard hobbyists and we were given clear guidelines as to what's cruelty and what's not when it pertains to butchering. Pretty much as long as the animal was killed quickly it was good to go. Peta's already been trying that for years and they have gotten nowhere.

S746(prohibits firearms ownership for mere “disorderly person” offenses against animals). Existing animal cruelty laws prohibit firearms ownership by those convicted ofseriousoffenses. This bill would extend that prohibition to those convicted ofanyoffenses, including minor ones like leaving an animal unattended in a vehicle under certain conditions. While there may be no excuse for such conduct, there is also no excuse for blatantly overreaching and using low-level disorderly person offenses as an excuse to take away Constitutionally-protected gun rights that may be needed for self-defense in an emergency.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Only for leaving a dog in a car under INHUMANE conditions, no one is going to get in trouble for leaving their dog in a car when it's not to hot or cold out.

4:22-17. a. A person who shall:

(1)Overdrive, overload, drive when overloaded, overwork, deprive of necessary sustenance, abuse, or needlessly kill a living animal or creature;

(2)Cause or procure, by any direct or indirect means, including but not limited to through the use of another living animal or creature, any such acts to be done; or3)Inflict unnecessary cruelty upon a living animal or creature, by any direct or indirect means, including but not limited to through the use of another living animal or creature; or unnecessarily fail to provide a living animal or creature of which the person has charge either as an owner or otherwise with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather; or leave it unattended in a vehicle under inhumane conditions adverse to the health or welfare of the living animal or creature--

Overdrive, overload, drive when overloaded, overwork, deprive of necessary sustenance, abuse, or needlessly kill a living animal or creature;

So, if you go out jogging with your dog, will that be considered inhumane? Better be careful how may times you throw the frisbee for him at the park. How about making him run hard through the woods bird hunting? Some would consider that abuse.

How about participation in Agility or K9 obstacle course competitions, where the dog is pushed to perform?

Quote

or unnecessarily fail to provide a living animal or creature of which the person has charge either as an owner or otherwise with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather;

Take your dog for a walk on a hot day, and his tongue is hanging out and he's panting heavy.... GUILTY!!!!!

The State of New Jersey has gone to extraordinary efforts to prevent it's law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves and further enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. When will the madness end?

I certainly don't advocate ANY animal abuse, but S-746, as written, could lead to my gun rights being taken away for something as simple as my dog's water
bowl being empty on a hot summer's day because my child or even my dog inadvertently knocked it over and a nosy neighbor called the police before I took notice
and filled the bowl!

The above situation, as ridiculous as it is, has nothing to do with my ability to safely own a firearm, nor should it...but it could!

Please stop using every excuse you can think of to take guns from the hands of the law abiding, yet doing nothing to take them from criminals! A criminal who robs a liquor store with a gun will, in a plea deal, have the gun charge dropped and be free in 18 months. An innocent person like Shaneen Allen who, with a carry permit
in PA crossed into our state and were it not for Governor Christie, would have spent 5 years behind bars for simply not realizing she was leaving A free state and entering one that does not fully recognize our Bill of Rights as most states rightfully do! I implore you to end the madness now!

Share on other sites

So, if you go out jogging with your dog, will that be considered inhumane? Better be careful how may times you throw the frisbee for him at the park. How about making him run hard through the woods bird hunting? Some would consider that abuse.

How about participation in Agility or K9 obstacle course competitions, where the dog is pushed to perform?

Take your dog for a walk on a hot day, and his tongue is hanging out and he's panting heavy.... GUILTY!!!!!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It does say any crime or offense related to animal cruelty, so disorderly persons charges appear to be on the list. I have not yet read that list, but can not help but to "pre-wonder" if not keeping a dog licenced is one of those disorderly persons charges.

When a dog is panting that's their way of expelling heat(equivalent of humans sweating) and is a NORMAL physiological reaction. The dog would be considered over heated when it STOPS panting. An overheated dog that is not panting is in distress. That's how I know you dont know as much as you think you do about dogs.

I'm sure your going to go on and on about how right you are and how great you are but I really dont care and your back on block and I'm not responding to you anymore.

Aren't you supposed to be not interacting with me anyway? Dont you remeber your little "time out" over the holidays?

Link to post

Share on other sites

The concern would be that since this bill expands the law to include minor convictions it creates a gray area where once again what can cause you to lose your 2A rights is up to interpretation. Sure that may not be the intent but the concern is there given the subjective nature of the expansion.

The concern would be that since this bill expands the law to include minor convictions it creates a gray area where once again what can cause you to lose your 2A rights is up to interpretation. Sure that may not be the intent but the concern is there given the subjective nature of the expansion.

15 minutes ago, fishnut said:

I'm sure your going to go on and on about how right you are and how great you are but I really dont care and your back on block and I'm not responding to you anymore.

You see @fishnut, voyager gets it, it's all about the interpretation. But, you decided just to jump to conclusions, and didn't understand the point of my post.... typical... I was pointing to how different everyday activities can be considered abuse by some, and how this law could be misused. But, you decided to go on the personal attack, anyway. (want to remind me who was crying a few months ago about personal attacks???)

21 minutes ago, fishnut said:

Aren't you supposed to be not interacting with me anyway?

Maybe you should go cry to a certain someone again, that your feelings are hurt, because I posted a comment in a thread.

Share on other sites

The concern would be that since this bill expands the law to include minor convictions it creates a gray area where once again what can cause you to lose your 2A rights is up to interpretation. Sure that may not be the intent but the concern is there given the subjective nature of the expansion.

Exactly. In Pennsylvania, there is specific criteria for being a prohibited person with firearms and a license to carry. Basically New jersey law makers are replacing "it's for the children" with "it's for the dogs."

It does say any crime or offense related to animal cruelty, so disorderly persons charges appear to be on the list. I have not yet read that list, but can not help but to "pre-wonder" if not keeping a dog licenced is one of those disorderly persons charges.

Share on other sites

The concern would be that since this bill expands the law to include minor convictions it creates a gray area where once again what can cause you to lose your 2A rights is up to interpretation. Sure that may not be the intent but the concern is there given the subjective nature of the expansion.

The bill does not say all minor convictions just convictions that are all spelled out in NJ 4:22 all of which are currently either crimes or disorderly persons offences

So this is OK with U as they take away your Constitutional 2A Rights...………..

I dont commit animal cruelty or any other crimes for that matter so how would anyone take away my 2A rights?

Yes I'm ok with people who are convicted of animal cruelty losing their 2A rights. As I stated in my first post people who commit animal cruelty do not possess good decision making skills therefore they should not have access to firearms.

Are you ok with someone owning firearms when they intentionally dont provide shelter, food or water to an animal for so long that the animal dies of exposure, starvation or dehydration?

The bill does not say all minor convictions just convictions that are all spelled out in NJ 4:22 all of which are currently either crimes or disorderly persons offences

I see your point but I still find this bill suspect. I have a problem overall with losing a constitutional right over a misdemeanor. If the crime is serious enough to warrant that then it should be a felony. Losing your 2A right over one misdemeanor after another is the definition of slippery slope.

Share on other sites

If the crime is serious enough to warrant that then it should be a felony. Losing your 2A right over one misdemeanor after another is the definition of slippery slope.

I can completely agree with all disordley persons offences as outlined in NJ 4:22-17 should be inditable crimes. Unfortunately NJs animal cruelty laws were written in 1983 and have had very little updates or revisions over the years. Believe it or not bestality was not outlawed in NJ until 2015!